https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Partially fixed, the call argument issue is unresolved, and I guess some
analysis about say .*/->* is needed too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Oct 11 07:36:07 2019
New Revision: 276860
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276860&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/91987
cp/
* decl2.c (grok_array_decl): For -fstron
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another testcase for the same reason as above:
int a[4] = { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
int c;
int
main ()
{
int *x = a;
c = 1;
int r = (c = 4, x)[(c *= 2, 3)];
if (c != 8 || r != 3)
__builtin_abort ();
c =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Another testcase, another reason:
int a[4] = { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
int b[4] = { 5, 6, 7, 8 };
int
foo (void)
{
int *x = a;
int r = x[(x = b, 3)];
if (x != b)
__builtin_abort ();
return r;
}
int
main (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, if clang is right here, we'd need to force arguments not just with
is_gimple_reg_type, but also with all other types that are not
TREE_ADDRESSABLE, into temporaries (perhaps with a first check we really n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Probably, but aggregate copy of TREE_ADDRESSABLE aggregates might be a
> problem.
> For the arguments, I'm not planning to do anything myself, because I don't
> u
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
>
> --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #3)
> Ick. I'd say we should unconditionally guard the transform
> with the appropriate TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS check?
See above, wouldn't that mean throwing the optimi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
>
> --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> So for the shifts we'd need additionally:
> -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So for the shifts we'd need additionally:
--- gcc/fold-const.c.jj 2019-09-02 15:29:34.548515139 +0200
+++ gcc/fold-const.c2019-10-04 10:44:23.319883187 +0200
@@ -9447,16 +9447,23 @@ fold_binary_loc (locat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
To sum up IRC discussion with richi, he doesn't want this to be in the
gimplifier, as it is one FE specific, which means cp-gimplify.c is where this
needs to be done.
Furthermore, if we there have a predicate
12 matches
Mail list logo
